DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-6, 8-12, 15-19, 27, 47 and 82-83 are pending.
Claims 7, 13-14, 20-26, 28-46 and 48-81 are cancelled.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5/26/26 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 10-11, 27 and 47 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Palenske (US 2006/0053695).
Re claim 1, Palenske discloses a fenestration system (Fig. 6) comprising:
a frame assembly (106, 102), the frame assembly (106, 102) comprising
a sill (106), the sill (106) comprising
a bottom surface (bottom of 106), the bottom surface (bottom of 106) comprising
a first edge projection (108);
a second edge projection (334); and
the bottom surface (bottom of 106) defining a cavity (interior to 106 between 108 and 334), wherein a gap (between 108 and 334 opening at the bottom into the cavity therein) between the first edge projection (108) and the second edge (334) projection provides access to (Fig. 6) the cavity (interior to 106 between 108 and 334);
a sill cleat (102), the sill cleat (102) comprising
a first angled surface (left surface of 102, 90 degrees being an angle), wherein the first angled surface (left surface of 102) engages the first edge projection (108) upon movement of the sill (106) in a first direction (to the right); and
a second angled surface (right surface of 102, 90 degrees being an angle);
wherein the second angled surface (102 on the right) is disposed on an opposite side (Fig. 6) of the sill cleat (102) from the first angled surface (102 on the left);
wherein the second angled surface (102 on the right) engages (Fig. 6) the second edge projection (334) upon movement of the sill (106) in a second direction (to the left);
wherein the sill cleat (11) extends part way through (Fig. 6, bottom of 102) the gap (between 108 and 334) and a clearance gap (see examiner comments) is defined between at least one of the first angled surface (left surface of 102) and the first edge projection (108) and the second angled surface (right surface of 102) and the second edge projection (334); and
wherein the first direction (to the right) is opposite the second direction (to the left).
Additionally, the language “upon movement” is language that suggests or makes optional/contingent the subsequent limitation or limitations. Language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation. See § MPEP 2103 (C).
Re claim 10, Palenske discloses the fenestration system of claim 1, wherein the fenestration system (Fig. 6) is a door assembly (Claim 1).
Re claim 11, Palenske discloses the fenestration system of claim 1, wherein the fenestration system (Fig. 6) is a window assembly (as no distinguishing structure of a window is claimed, Fig. 6 functions as a window).
Re claim 27, Palenske discloses a fenestration system (Fig. 6) comprising:
a frame assembly (106, 102), the frame assembly (106, 102) comprising
a sill (106), the sill (106) comprising
a bottom surface (bottom of 106), the bottom surface (bottom of 11064) comprising
a first edge projection (108), the first edge projection (108) comprising a first angled surface (to the right);
a second edge projection (334), the second edge projection (334) comprising a second angled surface (to the left); and
the bottom surface (bottom of 106) defining a cavity (between 108 and 334, and interior to 106), wherein a gap (between 108 and 334 opening into the cavity) between the first edge projection (108) and the second edge (334) projection provides access to (Fig. 6) the cavity (between 108 and 334, and interior to 106);
a sill cleat (102);
wherein the sill cleat (102) extends part way through (Fig. 6) the gap (between 108 and 334) a clearance gap (see examiner comments) is defined between at least one of the first angled surface (left surface of 102) and the first edge projection (108) and the second angled surface (right surface of 102) and the second edge projection (334);
wherein the first angled surface (of 108) of the first edge projection (108) engages the sill cleat (102) upon movement of the sill (106) in a first direction (to the right);
wherein the second angled surface (of 334) of the second edge projection (334) engages (Fig. 6) the sill cleat (102) upon movement of the sill (106) in a second direction (to the left);
wherein the first direction (to the right) is opposite the second direction (to the left).
Additionally, the language “upon movement” is language that suggests or makes optional/ contingent the subsequent limitation or limitations. Language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation. See § MPEP 2103 (C).
Re claim 47, Palenske discloses a fenestration system (Fig. 6) comprising:
a frame assembly (102, 106), the frame assembly (102, 106) comprising
a sill (106), the sill (106) comprising
a bottom surface (bottom of 106), the bottom surface (bottom of 106) comprising
a first edge projection (108);
a second edge projection (16334); and
the bottom surface (bottom of 106) defining a cavity (between 108 and 334 and interior to 106), wherein a gap (between 108 and 334 opening into the cavity) between the first edge projection (108) and the second edge (334) projection provides access to (Fig. 6) the cavity (between 108 and 334 and interior to 106);
a sill cleat (102), the sill cleat (102) comprising a first angled surface (left surface of 102; 90 degrees being an angle), wherein the first angled surface (left surface of 102; 90 degrees being an angle) engages the first edge projection (108) upon movement of the sill (102) in a first direction (to the right);
wherein the first angled surface (left surface of 102) is angled with respect to (left surface of 102; 90 degrees being an angle) a bottom surface (bottom of 102) of the sill (102) such that a top (see examiner comments) of the first angled surface (left surface of 102) is wider than (Fig. 6; due to the notch at 108) a bottom (see examiner comments) of the first angled surface (left surface of 102);
wherein the sill cleat (102) extends part way through (Fig. 6) the gap (108 and 334).
Additionally, the language “upon movement” is language that suggests or makes optional/contingent the subsequent limitation or limitations. Language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation. See § MPEP 2103 (C).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 2-5, 8-9, 12, 15-16, 18-19 and 83 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Palenske (US 2006/0053695).
Re claim 2, Palenske discloses the fenestration system of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the first angled surface is configured to engage the first edge projection upon movement of the sill in the first direction a distance of 0.1 to 0.3 inches.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fenestration system of Palenske wherein the first angled surface is configured to engage the first edge projection upon movement of the sill in the first direction a distance of 0.1 to 0.3 inches in order to provide sufficient flexure of 106 such that 106 bends .1-.3 inches allowing for insertion of 102 on both sides. It has been held that a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). In addition, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456.
Re claim 3, Palenske discloses the fenestration system of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the first angled surface is configured to engage the first edge projection upon movement of the sill in the first direction a distance of 0.175 inches.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fenestration system of Palenske wherein the first angled surface is configured to engage the first edge projection upon movement of the sill in the first direction a distance of 0.175 inches in order to provide sufficient flexure of 106 such that 106 bends 0.175 inches allowing for insertion of 102 on both sides. It has been held that a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Re claim 4, Palenske discloses the fenestration system of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the second angled surface is configured to engage the second edge projection upon movement of the sill in the second direction a distance of 0.1 to 0.3 inches.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fenestration system of Palenske wherein the second angled surface is configured to engage the second edge projection upon movement of the sill in the second direction a distance of 0.1 to 0.3 inches in order to provide sufficient flexure of 106 such that 106 bends .1-.3 inches allowing for insertion of 102 on both sides. It has been held that a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). In addition, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456.
Re claim 5, Palenske discloses the fenestration system of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the second angled surface is configured to engage the second edge projection upon movement of the sill in the second direction a distance of 0.175 inches.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fenestration system of Palenske wherein the second angled surface is configured to engage the second edge projection upon movement of the sill in the second direction a distance of 0.175 inches in order to provide sufficient flexure of 106 such that 106 bends 0.175 inches allowing for insertion of 102 on both sides. It has been held that a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Re claim 8, Palenske discloses the fenestration system of claim 1, wherein a top (top of 102) of the first angled surface (left surface of 102) is wider than (Fig. 6, due to the notch proximate 108) a bottom (bottom of 102) of the first angled surface (left surface of 102), but fails to disclose wherein the first angled surface is angled from 35 to 55 degrees with respect to a bottom surface of the sill.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fenestration system of Palenske wherein the second angled surface is angled from 35 to 55 degrees with respect a bottom surface of the sill in order to allow the sill to easily slide over the sill cleat during assembly. It has been held that a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Re claim 9, Palenske discloses the fenestration system of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the second angled surface is angled from 35 to 55 degrees with respect to a bottom surface of the sill.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fenestration system of Palenske wherein the second angled surface is angled from 35 to 55 degrees with respect to a bottom surface of the sill in order to allow the sill to easily slide over the sill cleat during assembly. It has been held that a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Re claim 12, Palenske discloses the fenestration system of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the sill cleat has a profile height of about 3/8 inches or less.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fenestration system of Palenske wherein the sill cleat has a profile height of about 3/8 inches or less in order to ensure that sill cleat is not so tall as to prevent a larger tripping hazard, and to use as little material as possible to save costs. It has been held that a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Re claim 15, Palenske discloses the fenestration system of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the sill cleat is formed of aluminum.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fenestration system Palenske wherein the sill cleat is formed of aluminum in order to utilize an inexpensive, durable, weather/water resistant and easily formable material. In addition, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Re claim 16, Palenske discloses the fenestration system of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the sill cleat is at least 10 inches long.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fenestration system of Palenske wherein the sill cleat is at least 10 inches long in order to span a significant length of the sill of the door for a better connection thereto. It has been held that a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Re claim 18, Palenske discloses the fenestration system of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the sill cleat is divided into a plurality of discrete pieces.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fenestration system of Palenske wherein the sill cleat is divided into a plurality of discrete pieces in order to shorten the overall length allowing for smaller parcels for shipping and/or transportation. It has been held that making seperable is within the level of ordinary skill. In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522.
Re claim 19, Palenske discloses the fenestration system of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the sill cleat has a substantially rectangular perimeter.
However, it would have been obvious as a matter of choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fenestration system of Palenske wherein the sill cleat has a substantially rectangular perimeter in order to simplify manufacture by eliminating a need for angled, inclined, and/or notched surfaces. In addition, it has been held that a mere change in shape of a component is within the level of ordinary skill in the art absent persuasive evidence that a particular configuration of the claimed shape is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149.
Re claim 83, Palenske discloses the fenestration system of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the sill cleat is divided into a plurality of discrete pieces that each have a substantially circular perimeter.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fenestration system of Palenske wherein the sill cleat is divided into a plurality of discrete pieces in order to shorten the overall length allowing for smaller parcels for shipping and/or transportation. It has been held that making seperable is within the level of ordinary skill. In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522.
In addition, it would have been obvious as a matter of choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fenestration system of Palenske wherein the sill cleat discrete pieces have a substantially circular perimeter in order to simplify manufacture by eliminating a need for angled, inclined, and/or notched surfaces. In addition, it has been held that a mere change in shape of a component is within the level of ordinary skill in the art absent persuasive evidence that a particular configuration of the claimed shape is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Palenske (US 2006/0053695) in view of Salvoni (US 2023/0009152).
Re claim 6, Palenske discloses the fenestration system of claim 1, but fails to disclose further comprising a polymeric composition, wherein the polymeric composition is disposed adjacent to the first angled surface and the second angled surface.
However, Salvoni discloses further comprising a polymeric composition ([0056]; silicone), wherein the polymeric composition ([0056]) is disposed adjacent to the first angled surface (38 on the left) and the second angled surface (38 on the right).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fenestration system of Palenske further comprising a polymeric composition, wherein the polymeric composition is disposed adjacent to the first angled surface and the second angled surface as disclosed by Salvoni in order to secure the angled surfaces to the edge projections ([0056]) and to utilize a cheap, readily available, easily formable material.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Palenske (US 2006/0053695) in view of Smith (US 5,283,977).
Re claim 17, Palenske discloses the fenestration system of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein a bottom surface of the sill cleat defines one or more feet.
However, Smith discloses wherein a bottom surface (bottom of 16) of the sill cleat (16) defines one or more feet (42, 44, 46).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fenestration system of Palenske wherein a bottom surface of the sill cleat defines one or more feet by Smith in order to elevate the sill cleat for ventilation or the passage of water.
Claim(s) 82 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Palenske (US 2006/0053695) in view of St. Aubin (US 4,411,104).
Re claim 82, Palenske discloses the fenestration system of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the sill cleat is secured to a base structure with a fastener.
However, St. Aubin discloses wherein the sill cleat (Fig. 5, 56) is secured to a base structure (subflooring) with a fastener (Col 3 lines 49-57).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fenestration system of Palenske wherein the sill cleat is secured to a base structure with a fastener as disclosed by St. Aubin in order to rigidly secure the sill cleat (to a structure such as subflooring) to avoid movement or drift over time.
Examiner Comments
PNG
media_image1.png
406
787
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
406
653
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections 35 USC 102 and/or 103: Applicant’s arguments with respect to all claims have been considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Palenske fails to disclose wherein the first angled surface engages the first edge projection upon movement of the sill in a first direction, and wherein the second angled surface engages the second edge projection upon movement of the sill in a second direction. Applicant contends that sill cleat 102 is rigidly connected to the alleged sill 106 via adjustment screw 210 and thus cannot move with respect to the sill cleat. Regardless of any rigid connection, the sill 106 and sill cleat 102 need not move with respect to each other in order to read on the claim. As noted above, the language, “upon movement” is language that makes optional/conditional/contingent subsequent limitations. MPEP 2103 (C) specifically states, “language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation.” MPEP 2103 (C) further states that language that makes features contingent may raise a question as to its limiting effect. As was noted in the Advisory Action, the claim, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, can be interpreted as the sill not moving, thus not requiring any engagement. “Upon movement” does not positively require movement.
Applicant further argues the previous language regarding intended use. These arguments are rendered moot in view of Applicant’s removal of the language, “configured to.”
With respect to the Advisory Action, Applicant further argues that Palenski’s sill cannot move with respect to the cleat, such that there can never be engagement as recited in the claim. Again, movement is not positively recited in the claim. Consider the below, a situation in which Driver is driving along the path indicated by the solid arrow. Driver is given directions which state, “upon making a left turn, Driver arrives at Destination A.” The Driver is not required to make a left turn, and need not take the path indicated by the dashed arrow. Driver can simply continue driving straight past the left turn. In that situation, Driver would never arrive at Destination A. Making a left turn in this scenario is akin to “upon movement” in the claims, and Destination A is akin to the claimed engagement. Making a left turn never needs to actually occur, and if it never occurs, arriving at Destination A need not ever occur. Similarly, as claimed, movement need not ever actually occur, and thus, engagement need not ever occur. As such, the prior art meets the claim.
PNG
media_image3.png
375
531
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE WALRAED-SULLIVAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8838. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am - 5:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Brian Mattei can be reached at (571)270-3238. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
KYLE WALRAED-SULLIVAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3635
/KYLE J. WALRAED-SULLIVAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635
Prosecution Insights